11 tweets,
6 min read
1 Following up on what @MaxBlumenthal pointed out ( ), this ⬇️ is exemplifies a widespread, fundamental misunderstanding of Manafort's acts in Ukraine.
2 Here's NYT on what Manafort did in Ukraine: "Mr. Manafort pressed Mr. Yanukovych to sign an agreement with the European Union that would link the country closer to the West" - i.e. away from Putin nytimes.com/2016/08/01/us/…
4 btw @chrislhayes , if we actually care about questionable dealings in Ukraine, how about we also look into how Biden's son got a lucrative board seat at Ukraine's largest private gas company just two months after the coup his father helped back? 🤔washingtonpost.com/news/worldview…
In court Tuesday, Rick Gates substantiated an inconvenient fact that a few of us have pointed out: Manafort was not pushing Kremlin interests in Ukraine. In trying to tie Manafort's Ukraine activities to Trump-Russia, Russiagaters allege he did Putin's bidding. Eg @chrislhayes :
Before I show you what Gates said, I want to demonstrate why I've argued that pundits like @Maddow have become straight-up propagandists on this issue. Here is Maddow last night saying that Gates' testimony *substantiates* the Manafort-Russia tie:
(you watch that full segment here -- note that it's called "New Trial Testimony Offers Insight Into Paul Manafort Ties To Russia" : )
Now let's look at what Gates actually said in court, and which @Maddow completely ignored, presumably because it undercuts her entire argument. I don't have the transcript yet, but here is what Vice News reported: news.vice.com/en_us/article/…
According to Gates -- "Engage Ukraine" -- the very policy Manafort crafted -- "became the strategy for helping Ukraine enter the European Union." So the obvious question for @Maddow is: in a segment on Manafort's "pro-Russia" policy, why did you ignore this?
Missing some Tweet in this thread?
You can try to force a refresh.
You can try to force a refresh.